Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I don't know, but here is a link showing us an Ica native riding on a Triceratops dinosaur smoking a pipe. Image found on an Ica burial stone. I though all those dinosaures died off 75 million years ago. Well maybe some of those believers in evolution missed some of that other evidence. Of course, maybe they were to busy pressuring the courts not to allow that kind of evidence in the public schools that would expose evolutions fake timeline.
If it were rationally presented in high-school, along with a real open-minded Q&A session, using logic and research tools that don't allow mischief ("science", we call it; "evil" you call it), instead of "Believe it, dammit, or you're going directly to H$LL!"), it would end up where it so rightly deserved to be. Flush.. gurgle gurgle gurgllll.....
Well, your usual larger-issue-deflecting micro-argument lines aside, Tom, we've proven not only the micro- but the macro-methodologies of Evolution. We know exactly how and when and where it happens, and why, with traceable histories and functional transitionals (you're one, right there in the mirror!) and when we do find new evidence, it always now fits in to the larger picture. It also happens to successfully explain most everything we've found & observed. The most common new finding and correction now is that we've been around even longer than originally thought. Now about 3.2 Ma, isn't it?
"The divisions of geologic time are not arranged in terms of strict mathematical relationships of the type to which we are accustomed, for example, ten years in a decade, ten decades in a century, and so on. Instead, each era consists of two or more periods, each period consists of two or more epochs, and so on. The first 4,000 million years or so of Earth's existence (abbreviated as 4,000 Ma, or 4 Ga) are known as Precambrian time."
But, a mere 50k here in N. America. Pre-flood, as it were....
BTW, read the following link, if you can & dare, and weep. Alone, in the dark you choose to live in. This will scare you into the next life, unfortunately, because of your insistence on ignoring it and it's obvious cross-checking validity.
If something in a scientific hypothesis doesn't fit quite right, we look at our overall theory and make the necessary adjustments, providing acolyte Christians with the only bit of new ammo to fire at us, as in:
"Science is always changing it's mind! How can you depend on that? Only the bible is inerrant and unwavering"
Yes, in it's readers' vast stubbornness and it's original innocence and scientific illiteracy.
So, it's true. It's better for some to cling to old prophets' tales and obvious fakery. Esp. when it is so clearly illogical and impossible.
Besides, in truth, there's a huge difference betwen completely changing one's story (which, facts be known, has NEVER happened in science's grand overall concepts about Evolution for the past 100 years...) and making gradual fact-based improvements to the overall theory.
But, hey, why let facts and the truth get in the way of one's argument when one's life-functionality depends on clinging to a version of reality, right or wrong?
You heard your God speak to you. Wonderful. Does He also clearly explain why and how His side of the story falls so completely apart under even the most rudimentary scrutiny?
Last edited by rifleman; 05-03-2009 at 12:42 PM..
Reason: typos clarification
Uh oh....Back to beating that El Toro figurine and Inca dead horse some more are we?
It's only dead in the minds of those who only believe in selective science. Because a true believer in the scientific method would consider and support a true scientifice review of this evidence. Yet it appears, there are a number of people who reject evidence like this based on their personal opinion only. This is often seen by believers in evolution. Anything that supports their belief in evolution they imbrace. Anything that does not support their belief, they reject.
If it were rationally presented in high-school, along with a real open-minded Q&A session, using logic and research tools that don't allow mischief ("science", we call it; "evil" you call it), instead of "Believe it, dammit, or you're going directly to H$LL!"), it would end up where it so rightly deserved to be. Flush.. gurgle gurgle gurgllll.....
Well, your usual larger-issue-deflecting micro-argument lines aside, Tom, we've proven not only the micro- but the macro-methodologies of Evolution. We know exactly how and when and where it happens, and why, with traceable histories and functional transitionals (you're one, right there in the mirror!) and when we do find new evidence, it always now fits in to the larger picture. It also happens to successfully explain most everything we've found & observed. The most common new finding and correction now is that we've been around even longer than originally thought. Now about 3.2 Ma, isn't it?
"The divisions of geologic time are not arranged in terms of strict mathematical relationships of the type to which we are accustomed, for example, ten years in a decade, ten decades in a century, and so on. Instead, each era consists of two or more periods, each period consists of two or more epochs, and so on. The first 4,000 million years or so of Earth's existence (abbreviated as 4,000 Ma, or 4 Ga) are known as Precambrian time."
But, a mere 50k here in N. America. Pre-flood, as it were....
BTW, read the following link, if you can & dare, and weep. Alone, in the dark you choose to live in. This will scare you into the next life, unfortunately, because of your insistence on ignoring it and it's obvious cross-checking validity.
If something in a scientific hypothesis doesn't fit quite right, we look at our overall theory and make the necessary adjustments, providing acolyte Christians with the only bit of new ammo to fire at us, as in:
"Science is always changing it's mind! How can you depend on that? Only the bible is inerrant and unwavering"
Yes, in it's readers' vast stubbornness and it's original innocence and scientific illiteracy.
So, it's true. It's better for some to cling to old prophets' tales and obvious fakery. Esp. when it is so clearly illogical and impossible.
Besides, in truth, there's a huge difference betwen completely changing one's story (which, facts be known, has NEVER happened in science's grand overall concepts about Evolution for the past 100 years...) and making gradual fact-based improvements to the overall theory.
But, hey, why let facts and the truth get in the way of one's argument when one's life-functionality depends on clinging to a version of reality, right or wrong?
You heard your God speak to you. Wonderful. Does He also clearly explain why and how His side of the story falls so completely apart under even the most rudimentary scrutiny?
And your conclusion is of course based on no scientific review. As you have stated here, why let the facts get in the way? And that is why if it is a sunken city West of Cuba, Inca burial stones, or even the El Toro figurines, just ignore the facts, and pretend such finds do not exist. Or just deny them without any facts. Who needs facts, when you have your theory of Evolution. Gods story does not fall apart at all, and as I have stated numerous times, historical discovery only helps to confirm it. The Biblical story only falls apart when you ignore the evidence for it's reality. And that appears to be a common practice among believers in evolution.
Again, the fossils you claim are millions of years old is based only on assumptions. And it matters little if they are found in stone, or in amber.
Your word against thousands of scientists and tests huh?...Assumptions on who's side Campbell?....You simply dismiss it out of hand because it would destroy the young earth myth that is so important to you. Have you ever looked at the fossils embedded in amber? So many extinct species. I wonder how that could be if amber was all formed recently.
Science speaks because it has something to say....Young earth creationists speak because they have to say something.
And your conclusion is of course based on no scientific review.
Thoughtless rubbish. That's a FACT. My conclusions about any science that I've had no particular hand in is based, of course, on my evaluation of their honest interpretations. Plus my own intricate and accredited knowledge of how science works, and how these people have double- or triple-verified their findings. Against your simple but necessary dislike for the truth.
Hardly what anyone would call a good argument.
But... my conclusions on things I HAVE been directly involved in? Geology, Mammalogy, direct investigations of varves in geology (which questions you've never answered. Why? Because you know they are inviolate and incontrovertible if you can count; one, two, three years, ten years, forty thousand years, two hundred thousand years, and on.). My experiences in dating and it's vastly accurate and, sadly for you, cross-validations when simple blind checks are done (which means Teams B, C and D are given the same sample as Team A got but they have no idea what it is., where it's from (it could be a bit of rock picked up out of their parking lot, or a piece of amber from 10 milion years ago) .
They may (and do...) use different methods. Guess what answers come back? Nahhh... you can't handle the truth of such inviolate study integrity. You just insult. That's the YEC-Cr key answer & methodology. Insult.
You say those are all assumptions. Every conclusion in science, C34? Every one is an assumption? Or just those you don't like? That must be it, because...
If you say that, then you are, therefore, an insulting liar. You know zip about science, you regularly insult it and it's users. You are insulting a well-developed, extemely well policed Q&A SYSTEM, regularly infering it is in and of itself, somehow corrupt and evil, and yet you have no such proof, outside of the one or three or ten cases that YEC-Creationists parade as proof that THE ENTIRE SYSTEM is corrupt. Out of, now, countless millions of studies. all peer-reviewed by people of considerable integrity and knowledge.
Your claims it's ALL assumptive? Again, that's clearly rubbish, and you know it. It's like calling all cardiologists idiots because one patient dies. One hopes you never get heart disease. Apparently you do suck on the hind tit of science to keep yourself alive, ignoring the vast studious research which has gone into ALL of the "useless, lying and assumptive" research that created it.
As you have stated here, why let the facts get in the way? And that is why if it is a sunken city West of Cuba, Inca burial stones, or even the El Toro figurines, just ignore the facts, and pretend such finds do not exist.
No. Sorry, Tom. You always just come roaring back and recycling your opinions on what we find when we look into your pet proofs. They are all now so easily recognizable; singular oddball events or finds that some unsubstantiated, discredited or Creationist Organization has decided to be it's next case in point, the very flagship of its entirety.
Too bad they will never find anything better, because, logically,...
there can never be a proof for something that doesn't exist. That's a logical observation.
Only false, shadowy questionable incantations. Apparently that sort of thing is quite OK, and happily passes for crediblefindings with you people.
That's also OK & quite understandable; little kids are also dreadfully afraid of "the thing under the bed" too, and are completelyconvinced of it's veracity as well.
Let's look at the rest of your deflections...
Or just deny them without any facts. Who needs facts, when you have your theory of Evolution.
One simple honest challenge to you: let's change things around and take one or two studies of our choice, ones where there is no controversy about validity, no wishy-washy research, no-one paying any peasants for "more figurines. ("Ten pesos for every one you mak..I mean, find!" Now, back to the firing ovfens and fields, pronto!")
Let's look into the research that led to, say, kidney dialysis technology, and whether it's functional, reliable and effective, or whether those assumptive scientists did it all wrong.
Or, how about the dating done on amber? Or the Lake Baikal million-year-old varves? I do note that those varves have never been questioned by the YEC-Cr fringies. They just go back to mumbling about El Toro toys, or some other minor issue.
(BTW, folks, the fine managment of Acambaro have provided no further comment for me, denying the opportunity for me and Team A up at my alma mater from dating this stuff. They are not interested in the truth, or the implications it would have for their tourism. Or integrity)
Gods story does not fall apart at all, and as I have stated numerous times, historical discovery only helps to confirm it.
Only to the desperate, who mis-represent everything. Like in that excellent video san provided.
The Biblical story only falls apart when you ignore the evidence for it's reality. And that appears to be a common practice among believers in evolution.
Again, with the "common practice" disclaimer. The "common practice" is to read the growing body of knowledge, see how well it was done, and how, yeppers, it continues to further support the unified theory of our entire world-view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Your word against thousands of scientists and tests huh?...
You're wrong, san... it's well up into the millions now, but who's counting... Certainly not the YEC-Cr crowd.
Assumptions on who's side Campbell?....You simply dismiss it out of hand because it would destroy the young earth myth that is so important to you. Have you ever looked at the fossils embedded in amber? So many extinct species. I wonder how that could be if amber was all formed recently.
(God did it to confuse us...)
Will he look though? Will the child look under the bed when he hears an unmistakable noise in the night? No. That would be to face his fears. That's never going to happen.
Science speaks because it has something to say....Young earth creationists speak because they have to say something.
I love that one. Hee hee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Again, the fossils you claim are millions of years old is based only on assumptions.
Where's YOUR proof for this? How much money and time and credibility have been invested by YEC-CR fundies to support your claim this is "only an assumption"?
I'll answer for you: nothing. Just some guy sitting in a building in the back of a church, applying wishful thinking and invective, and trying to be "clever". If nothing exists to refute, he just makes something up. sounds intellectually honest, right? so what, though, eh, if it supports the greater good... I mean God. He or she's never even entered a science lab. They'd burst into flames.....
And it matters little if they are found in stone, or in amber.
Of course not. It matters not from where the research or findings come from. They're all "assumptive" if they point to that fact of our age.
I see how this is done. I'm changing. See my next post, which I'll separate to keep the methodology distinct.
Last edited by rifleman; 05-04-2009 at 09:26 AM..
Reason: typos
I don't understand what you're trying to prove. We know evolution is true, and can be observed it's happening. You can still believe in the evolution process and believe in God so I am not sure what your point is.
Back to my question, if a picture can't be painted without a painter, how was the universe created without a creator?
The statements typically made by TEC-Cr fundies against scientific integrity and the credibility of their proven and regulated methods are all flawed, assumptive and with pre-determined conclusions.
Their YEC-Cr counter-arguments are but tiresome, falsified re-hashes, and are virtually unsupportable.
God is an assumption, unprovable and based on nothing provable by any rational standards.
It's all just fanciful, hopeful childish wishfulness.
_________________________________________________
In the same vein, the following is all incontrovertible, proven and reliable.
Well I don't know, but here is a link showing us an Ica native riding on a Triceratops dinosaur smoking a pipe. Image found on an Ica burial stone. I though all those dinosaures died off 75 million years ago. Well maybe some of those believers in evolution missed some of that other evidence. Of course, maybe they were to busy pressuring the courts not to allow that kind of evidence in the public schools that would expose evolutions fake timeline.
DUDE!!!! We've shown you time and time again the evidence of the Ica stones being A HOAX. Even the hoaxster ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS WIFE CREATED THE STONES.
Get a clue already. HOAX = NOT REAL. FAKE. BOGUS. A SCAM. Get it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further nonsense.
